HC Deb 28 June 2004 vol 423 cc5-7
3. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con)

When he last met the National Playing Fields Association; and what was discussed. [180462]

The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn)

On 27 May 2004, I met representatives from the NPFA, along with representatives from each of the other organisations that make up the national playing fields monitoring group. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the future role of the monitoring group.

Mr. Robathan

Why do so few on the monitoring group agree with the Government's assessment that the development of playing fields is under control? Has the Minister heard the comments by Don Earley, the deputy director of the NPFA: The government set up a Playing Fields Monitoring Group four years ago to publish monthly statistics on the loss of playing fields. What the government has done is mix up facts relating to playing fields' losses with playing fields' improvements… As presented, the picture on threats and losses is about as clear as the slimy mud on which our children are all too often expected to play sport"? Those who are involved with playing fields know that both development applications and approvals for planning applications are increasing. More than half of the planning applications approved in the past year led to a reduction in playing fields or sports facilities.

Mr. Caborn

First, Don Earley attended the meeting that I referred to, and he did not give that impression. He is aware of the draft terms of reference that we have suggested to take the debate forward, which we want to do, rather than always reflecting on the past. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) knows that, in 1990. the Conservative Administration gave planning permission, lasting for 15 years, to build an office block on a cricket pitch in his constituency.

We are engaged in a constructive discussion with the NPFA and Don Earley. I do not know where the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Blaby came from, because Don Earley did not make such points to us, and he and other partners want to work constructively to find solutions to some of the problems. We want to advance the debate, rather than always looking at headlines in the Daily Mail and other papers, which will not acknowledge the £250 million investment in 2002–03.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Coop)

I cannot be the only hon. Member who sometimes feels a sense of foreboding and doom when I hear that a particular activity is "at the heart of Government policy". Recent statistics on playing fields and open space sales show that about one third of such sales occur in closed or closing schools, which is understandable, and that another third of such sales lead to improved facilities, which is fine. Is the Minister happy that the policy is sufficiently stringent to prevent other sales and disposals creeping under the wire, because one quarter of approved applications do not fall into either of those two categories?

Mr. Caborn

Very much so. The rules and regulations on the closure of playing fields are robust, and I am convinced that they will address the growth in sales. Planning applications for improvement and development are increasing—many such applications involve a change of use for playing fields—whereas in the past many planning applications involved closure. Conservative Members should realise that our young people want to play using state-of-the-art equipment such as Astroturf pitches, indoor facilities and floodlit areas. When Mick Hill, a fantastic javelin thrower, opened the English Institute for Sport in my city of Sheffield, he said, "If only we'd had these facilities 10 or 15 years ago so that our Olympians were able to practice indoors, we could have produced better results than we are doing now. It is great to pick up a javelin that is warm and not to have to pick the ice off it on a winter's evening somewhere up in Leeds."

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) (Con)

The Minister should recognise that in his Department's categorisation of the number of sites that have been allowed to be built on, the largest sub-category is: where the site was too small or the wrong shape to accommodate a playing pitch. Many of those involved in sport are mainly interested in children being allowed to kick a ball or play cricket wherever there is a playing field. They do not want that to be used as an excuse for allowing development, as we suspect that the Government have. If one travels to other countries that have produced many more successful Olympians than we have, one does not see their playing fields being built on. The Government are trying to find excuses for building on playing pitches instead of doing what they promised to do—stop the building.

Mr. Caborn

I have heard some claptrap in my life, but that is the best yet. When the Conservative Administration were in power, they closed 40 playing fields a month, whereas we have put in place the most robust criteria on playing fields that there has ever been. The revised version of PPG17 reduces the area of playing fields being built on—admittedly, not by as much as the National Playing Fields Association wanted, but that is part of the ongoing debate. The situation is a darn site better now than it was when the Conservatives were in power.